TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of the fact that the petitioner has no intention to obstruct the hearing of the cases and he has already surrendered before the Court voluntarily, requested that the LOC to be taken back. However, as no action is being taken, the present writ petition is filed. The instructions received earlier by the learned Government Pleader however show that on the basis of opinion of Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Superintendent of Police declined to take any action on the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of LOC. Since such a reason was not acceptable to this Court, the Superintendent of Police was directed to file a counter. In the present case, petitioner has already made an appropriate representation before the Superintendent o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.7 on 03.02.2006 at Guntur. It is stated that both of them lived together at London for some time and then she came back and delivered a male child on 19.10.2006. It is alleged that thereafter there is no contact between the petitioner and the 7th respondent and that the 7th respondent filed a complaint on 17.09.2012 against the petitioner and his parents alleging that there was a demand for dowry in Crime No.471 of 2012 before Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur, under Section 498-A IPC read with Sections 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is stated that at the request of the Investigating Officer, the Superintendent of Police, Guntur addressed the concerned authorities to issue LOC against the petitioner and accordingly the Additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however show that on the basis of opinion of Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Superintendent of Police declined to take any action on the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of LOC. Since such a reason was not acceptable to this Court, the Superintendent of Police was directed to file a counter. Learned Government Pleader has filed a counter affidavit of the second respondent, wherein he states that the Look Out Circular dated 08.01.2014 was to expire on 07.01.2015, the Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban sent a request for renewal of LOC to Additional Director General of Police, A.P., Hyderabad on 06.01.2015 and LOC was extended on 06.01.2015 by one more year. The counter affidavit further states that the said LOC was issued as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter affidavit as well as the decision of Delhi High Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in my view, would direct that it is open for the petitioner to approach the Investigating Officer and explain the circumstances and reasons why the Look Out Circular is required to be withdrawn. In the present case, petitioner has already made an appropriate representation before the Superintendent of Police as referred to above. However, apparently, the Superintendent of Police is not inclined to withdraw the said circular. The decision of Madras High Court referred to above in S. Martin V. Deputy Commissioner of Police And Others dated 21.02.2014 [2014 Law Suit (Madras) 250] directs in paras 45 and 46 that apart from approaching the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
